Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Venomcuz

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Venomcuz

Closed per WP:NOTNOW by User:Frank at (2/6/4).

Nomination

Venomcuz (talk · contribs) – I am a user who has been using Wikipedia for some time now and want to help make Wikipedia a more accurate and easier to use online resourceVenomcuz (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: If there is an artical than neds to be revised and made better or more helpfull I will attempt to revise it

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I have made the Airsoft pages twice as long but for some reason they are automaticaly deleted as soon as I press save

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I had and IP adress harrase me and other wikipedians untill he was recently banned for 2 weeks, I did not say anything or respond but He was reported to the adminitrator Nawlins and subsequently banned

General comments

• Links for Venomcuz: Venomcuz (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Venomcuz can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Venomcuz before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. At least moral support per WP:AGF more so than User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that I do not want to see a new editor discouraged. On the bright side of things, you have not yet made any Afd comments I can fault you for, you have not had any memorable negative interactions with me, and you have not been blocked. So, while most likely this request will be closed per "not now," please look to any suggestions those who oppose make as to how to improve and do not be discouraged. You will find many, many fun, enjoyable, rewarding, and constructive ways to contribute without being an administrator. Some of the most rewarding that I suggest include joining some productive projects. Consider, for example, Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, which is a terrific opportunity to assist fellow editors in improving content and thus a good way to make friends while helping others and improving our catalogging of human knowledge. Wikipedia:KC and Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee are usually non-controversial venues to help make Wikipedia a more pleasant environment. Finally, something that many new users benefit from is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, in which an experienced editor can help walk you through the many intricacies of the project. Anyway, have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Moral support I see you have good intentions but being an administrator is not needed to work on articles. Generally somewhere about 3000 edits and at least 6 months of experience in various areas in addition to article work are needed for your fellow editors to support a request for administrator rights. A Nobody made some good suggestions on things to start with in getting more involved. Cheers. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - sorry, I just don't think you're ready. The deleted pages you'd mentioned raises a concern of your understanding of the policies. As for the question about your administrative work you intend to take part in, you are free to make page improvements, without the admin tools. Better luck next time! Connormah (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose As above, you do not have enough experience at this point for the administrative tools. I'd recommend at least few months of solid experience first. Look forward to seeing you around. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose — Sorry, too early, hope to see you around in the near future. —Aaroncrick (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. However, that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.

   For the most part, it requires at least 5000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia. If you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.

   The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages, and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees should therefore have experience with areas such as AIV, RPP, AFD, and CSD.

   Adminship inevitably requires one to:

   1. explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions,
   2. review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so,
   3. review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, and
   4. negotiate a compromise.

   Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.

   Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, preferably not all in one article. I find a large number of WikiGnome-type edits to be helpful.

   If you have not done so already, you may find reading the following to be helpful:

   • WP:Guide to requests for adminship
   • WP:Administrators
   • WP:Administrators' reading list
   • WP:Protection policy and WP:Blocking policy (to learn when to do these things)

   My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and/or 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

5. I read your application more as a request for editorship than a request for adminship. Editorship is of course granted, welcome to Wikipedia! But adminship requires you to have been round long enough to have learned the jargon and made enough edits to pass this test. Very few make admin in less than a year, or less than 3,000 edits. I suggest that when you are no longer grounded you read some of the articles related to your schoolwork and maybe see if there is anything you can expand, reference or otherwise improve. ϢereSpielChequers 11:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose I hope to see you here in a few months time with some real experience. See above. Can someone close this RfA quickly. Polargeo (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   By the way generally only exceptionally nice friendly editors who do good work on Featured articles or Did You Know or some other helpfull area stand any chance of passing a request for adminship with less than 5000 edits and 1 years experience. It is a fact because I think it is :-) Polargeo (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral (Refusing to pile-on). What you have stated in question #1 does not require administrative rights. I strongly encourage you to edit articles where you see fit; remember, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just administrators! I wish you luck in your future editing and look forward to seeing your contributions. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral Come back with some more article writing/policy involvment later so that I and others can access you properly for adminship. 35 edits isnt enough to go by. Good luck, Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Non pile-on neutral I do not discriminate by age, but the wikibreak due to being grounded means you might not be available when needed. Also, although I encourage enthusiasm, adminship is no big deal, and it's vital to have a) a great knowledge of wikipedia policies, b) a firm grasp of language, c) the trust of the community. Become a good editor! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral Joining the non-pile-on pile-on. Warrah (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.